Depends on how you define "football athlete". Athleticism is expressed in many ways. What is more important, strength or speed? Depends on the position.
No one who saw Jerry Eckwood play before his knee injury needs to see his numbers. No one who saw Dennis Winston fly to the ball needs to see numbers. No one who saw Shawn Andrews pancake linemen needs to see numbers.
If "Arkansas born and bred" is the criteria, Keith Jackson and DeAngelo Wlliams should be on the list.
Nobody who saw Joe Adams play needed to see the numbers, but once they did, his stock dropped.
Completely agree on the different definition aspect. For me, I consider the player who is optimal in each category. I.e. there are a lot of people who can run 4.4 forties, but they weigh 130 pounds or so and don't have the strength of size to be able to play contact sports and would slow down too much if they added the weight. There are a lot of guy who are really strong and can lift heavy weights, but they don't have near enough quickness or speed to play sports. So for me, a person who is 5'8 180 and runs a 4.40 is less athletic than somebody who is 6'2 210 running a 4.45. Somebody who can put up 40 reps on the bench but runs a 5.8 forty is less athletic than somebody who puts up 35 reps on the bench and runs a 4.8 forty.
Admittedly, I also use athleticism to define how well a person can just pick up a sport. We all know somebody where no matter what sport you play, they are instantly going to be one of the best in the group at it. Just has a really natural control of their body.